URBAN TOURISM SPACE BASED ON BIKE-SHARING TOURIST IN YOGYAKARTA CITY

(1)

URBAN TOURISM SPACE BASED ON BIKE-SHARING TOURIST IN YOGYAKARTA CITY

RUANG PARIWISATA PERKOTAAN BERDASARKAN WISATAWAN PENGGUNA BIKE-SHARING DI KOTA YOGYAKARTA

Danar Wiyoso^*

Master Program in Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Diananta Pramitasari

Department of Architecture and Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Submitted:13-05-2020; Revised:25-08-2021; Accepted: 27-08-2021

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies the urban tourism space in a complex way as chosen by the bike-sharing tourists in Yogyakarta.

The space is defined as not only the tourist attraction object which has become a common attraction but also the elements of urban architecture such as landmarks, districts, paths, edges, and nodes that becoming lanes, stop points, and the destination for the tourist when cycling around using bike-sharing. The data collecting used in this research is person-cantered mapping by following the bike-sharing tourists’ movement and giving questionnaires to find out the tourists’ motivation in using bike-sharing for tourism. The hypothesis shows that the tourists would prefer to choose the common attraction as an urban tourism space in Yogyakarta. But by cycling, the tourists will be able to seek a new experience because they can be more flexible in exploring the space with uniqueness which has the shape of urban architecture elements. The research results showed that landmarks and paths were the two urban architecture elements that gave strong characteristics toward urban tourism space, as preferred by the bike-sharing tourists in Yogyakarta. The tourist attraction with both characteristics was located around the city centre. It indicated that the distribution of visits is still centrally located close to the bike shelters. So that the tourists could go to the other unique destinations in Yogyakarta, thus the researcher recommends that the bike shelters need to be evenly spread approaching the tourism attractions and amenities.

Keywords: Tourism Space; Urban Tourism; Characteristic; Bike-sharing; Tourist

ABSTRAK

Paper ini mengidentifikasi ruang pariwisata perkotaan yang dipilih oleh wisatawan pengguna bike-sharing di Kota Yogyakarta, ruang tersebut tidak hanya objek daya tarik wisata yang telah menjadi atraksi pada umumnya, namun dapat dimungkinkan berupa elemen arsitektur kota yaitu landmark, district, path, edge, dan nodes yang menjadi jalur lintasan, titik-titik pemberhentian, dan lokasi yang menjadi tujuan wisatawan ketika bersepeda dengan bike-sharing.

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Copyright ©2021 THE AUTHOR(S).This article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Jurnal Teknosains is published by the Graduate School of Universitas Gadjah Mada

VOLUME 11 No. 1, 22 Desember 2021 Halaman 76-89

(2)

Pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan person-centered mapping dengan mengikuti pergerakan wisatawan bersepeda dan memberikan kuesioner untuk mengetahui motivasi wisatawan dalam berwisata menggunakan bike-sharing. Tesis dalam kajian ini menunjukkan bahwa wisatawan masih akan cenderung memilih ruang pariwisata perkotaan yang menjadi objek daya tarik pada umumnya, di Yogyakarta. Namun dengan bersepeda, wisatawan akan mencari pengalaman baru karena lebih leluasa menjelajahi ruang-ruang yang memiliki keunikan berupa elemen arsitektur kota. Hasil riset menunjukkan bahwa landmark dan path merupakan dua elemen arsitektur kota yang memberi karakter kuat pada ruang pariwisata perkotaan, yang lebih disukai oleh wisatawan pengguna bike-sharing di Yogyakarta.

Objek daya tarik wisata dengan karakter kedua elemen tersebut terletak di seputaran area inti kota, hal ini mengindikasikan distribusi kunjungan masih terpusat berdekatan dengan bike shelter. Agar supaya wisatawan dapat berkunjung ke destinasi unik lainnya di Kota Yogyakarta, maka peneliti merekomendasikan bahwa lokasi bike shelter perlu lebih menyebar mendekati atraksi dan amenitas pariwisata.

Kata kunci: Ruang Pariwisata; Pariwisata Perkotaan;

Karakteristik; Bike-sharing; Wisatawan

INTRODUCTION

The special interest in tourism has become the tourists’ choice while visiting a tourist destination. public space tourism

formed by special interest tour with niche markets for years and quite popular for tourism industry. Special interest tourism consists of four main experiences: rewarding, enriching, adventure some experiences, and learning experiences. The existence of special interest tourism has given the implication in tourism space, especially those which related to attraction, accessibility and amenity as- pects. Yogyakarta City as one of Indonesia’s best tourism destination is always on the process and progress in responding the special interest tourism. Yogyakarta offers tourism attractions such as cultural tourism, culinary tourism, heritage tourism, and ecotourism which are part of special interest tourism. It is because as seen in spatial perspective, Yogya- karta City is dominated by urbanized area so the urban space also works as tourism space.

Based on the data from the tourism board of Yogyakarta City (2018), the number of the tourist destinations reaching to 47 objects which divided into 6 types of attractions, they are cultural and historical tourism, museum tourism, educational tourism, culinary tourism, shopping tourism and urban-village/kampong tourism. The tourist destinations distribution can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Map of Tourist Destinations Distribution in Yogyakarta City Source: Tourism Board of Yogyakarta City (2018).

(3)

Table 1.

Tourist Destinations in Yogyakarta City

Name of Tourist Destinations Type of Tourism Attraction Keraton Yogyakarta

Masjid Gedhe Kauman Tamansari

Puro Pakualaman

Istana Negara Gedung Agung Kotagede

Cultural and Historical Tourism Cultural and Historical Tourism Cultural and Historical Tourism Cultural and Historical Tourism Cultural and Historical Tourism Cultural and Historical Tourism Museum Sonobudoyo

Museum Sonobudoyo unit II Museum Tourism

Museum Tourism Museum Biologi

Museum Dewantara Kirti Griya Museum Sasana Wiratama Museum Dharma Wiratama Museum Batik

Museum Sasmitaloka Sudirman Museum Benteng Vredeburg Monumen SO 1 Maret Museum Bahari Museum Perjuangan Museum Sandi

Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Museum Tourism Taman Pintar

Kebun Plasma Nutfah Pisang Gembira Loka Zoo

Educational Tourism Educational Tourism Educational Tourism Angkringan and Kopi Joss

Lesehan Malioboro Gudeg Wijilan Bakmi Jawa Kadin KipoBakpia Pathuk

Culinary Tourism Culinary Tourism Culinary Tourism Culinary Tourism Culinary Tourism Culinary Tourism Malioboro

PASTY XT Square Pasar Klithikan Jalan Urip Sumoharjo Tirtodipuran

Prawirotaman

Pusat Buku Shopping Center Pasar Beringharjo

Jalan Rotowijayan and Ngasem

Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Shopping Tourism Kampung Code Jetisharjo

Kampung Sosromenduran Kampung Dipowinatan Kampung Kadipaten Kampung Patehan Kampung Tahunan Kampung Pandeyan Kampung Prenggan Kampung Purbayan

Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism Kampong/Village Tourism

Source: Tourism Board of Yogyakarta City, 2018.

(4)

The tourism activities in Yogyakarta City keep growing, as shown by the number of tourism visits which has fluctuating trends and tends to increase by years. Based on the Yogyakarta City Board of Statistic, in 2018, the most favorite tourist destination to visit were Gembira Loka Zoo, Taman Pintar, Kera- ton Yogyakarta (Yogyakarta Palace), and Ta- mansari. The tourist visit in Yogyakarta City are mostly group visit with specified itinerary made by the travel agent or going with a specified package tour. But it is also common to see solo-travelling tourists or small-group tourists who tend to have a random destination tour or go without itinerary by using the available transportation mode in Yogyakar- ta, one of which is bike-sharing.

One of the accessibilities to support the tourism in Yogyakarta City is the bike-sharing facility. A rental bike application-based facility namely JogjaBike had been launched since Oc- tober 2018, a partnership between the Govern- ment of Yogyakarta City and the third party.

At first, the bike-sharing facility was provided to the people and the tourists in Yogyakarta

City, but in the progress, it is mostly used by the tourists to explore the city. Based on the data retrieved from JogjaBike, it is shown that in 2019, 20.000 people had downloaded the bike-sharing apps and 16.800 had used it.

The existence of bike-sharing JogjaBike facility will increase the tourism attraction in the city since Yogyakarta City was once known as The City of Bicycle, and its area is quite accessible to be reached out by bicycle transportation mode. The bike-sharing tourists are dominated by domestic tourists. They are frequently seen roaming around the city especially during the weekend and during car free days applied in Malioboro every “Se- lasa Wage” (Tuesday repeated every 35 days in Javanese Calendar).

Since launched in 2018, the JogjaBike bike-sharing facility has been on high demand, started out with the city bikes then a year later, the mountain bikes were also provided. Besides the bicycles, JogjaBike bike- sharing facilitiy is also provided with bike shelters. The distribution of bike shelters in Yogyakarta City is shown in the Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The Distibution of Bike Shelters in Yogyakarta City Source: JogjaBike Apps, 2019.

(5)

The bike-sharing facility also supports the special interest tourism in Yogyakarta City, encouraging the tourists to explore every inch and corner of the urban space. The tourist must have their own preference to choose the paths, stop points, and the tourism attraction objects that becoming their preferred destination. The space in the paths, stop points, and tourist destinations surely have the characters as the urban tourism space. It is intriguing to be researched because the bike-sharing tourists tend to be random in doing their tourism tours. The variety of urban tourism space invented have the potential to emerge new tourism space which have never been designed as tourism attraction objects before.

This research aims to identify the characteristics of urban tourism space chosen by tourists when cycling around using bike- sharing. Thus, the researcher proposes the research question of “How is the characteristics of urban tourism space used by the JogjaBike bike-sharing tourists in Yogyakarta City?”.

The hypothesis shows that the tourists would prefer to choose the common attraction as urban tourism space in Yogyakarta. But by cycling, the tourists will be able to seek a new experience because they can be more flexible in exploring the space with uniqueness which have the shape of urban architecture elements.

The researcher’s urgency to do this research is to observe the distribution of urban tourism space preferred by the tourists related to the tourists’ visits distribution especially the special interest tourists using bike- sharing. This research is necessary to be done to give perspective toward the stakeholders about the existence of interesting tourism market to be developed in Yogyakarta City, that is special interest tourism in form of cycling using bike-sharing. The evenly spread distribution of the visits will affect the development opportunity of bike-sharing and toward the comfort of Yogyakarta City’s people while it keeps developing and growing as the tourism destination.

This research is limited by the adminis- trative area of Yogyakarta City, so the tourist attraction included in this research are only the objects situated in Yogyakarta City ad- ministrative area as referred to the data by Tourism Board of Yogyakarta City.

Leiper (1979) stated that most of destinations can be clearly identified as the tourist space and non-tourist space through the variety of marks clueing them about accepting or declining their visits. In this research, urban tourism space is described as the urban space that seen as a complex process related to the culture, lifestyle and a number of different demands toward vacation and tour.

It was also explained by Law (1996) stating that city is a multi-motivations destination, people came with various purposes, such as recreation and entertainment, business, visiting families and relatives and other personal business.

Page (1995) stated that a city could attract the tourist’ visits due to its unique function. The characteristics of a city that attract tourist are: 1) the urban area has the hetero- genetic character means that the city has the size, location, function shape and cultural heritages that various and different; 2) The scale of urban area and the different functions which continuously preserved will cause the city to be multi-functional such as the gov- ernance and business center, and also main tourism destination; and 3) the functions that developing in the city are produced to and consumed not only by the tourists but also by various users.

The characteristic of urban tourism space based on bike-sharing tourist can be identified by using some approaches though the related theories such as front stage and back stage tourism space, image of the city, and bike-sharing in tourism.

MacCannell (1973) mentioned that tourism or travelling in search for authenticity of experience not found back home. In his research about identifying authenticity of experience, MacCannell (1973) explained the existence of front stage and back stage. Front stage setting is a space created to show the

(6)

work of the existence of tourism activity, while back stage has the function to prepare everything to support the tourism activity.

Directly, front stage is translated as a tourism space that deliberately designed for tourism, a place where the hosts and guests or cus- tomers meet, while the back stage is a tourism space that is not deliberately designed, which could attract the tourists to visit. Mac- Cannell (1973) declined the dichotomy of both stages, because ideally, both of them are completing each other. Essentially, tourism is about the experience of place. The tourism

“product” is not the tourist destination, but it is about experience of that place and what happen there.

The urban tourism theory can’t be sepa- rated from the urban design theory. It shows the relation between the urban tourism and the characteristics of urban area which has the attraction potential that can be developed as tourism destination. The urban elements also becoming one of main motivation of a tourist to visit a city. In his theory, Lynch (1971) explained deeper that image of the city can be observed by five architecture elements, they are paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks. The definition of these architecture elements are:

1) Paths are the connecting lines used by the people in general, at some times, or have the potential to own shift and movement.

The lines could be the street, the foot path, the transit lines, or rail roads. The identity of a path can be recognized by the building façade in there;

2) Edges are the linier elements that are not considered or used as the streets by the users. These elements usually limit two kinds of different activity phases, situated in between two different areas such as the edge of the development, the village’s/

kampong’s outskirt in the city, the riverside;

3) Districts are the parts of the city with the area ranging from medium to wide that can be entered and easily recognized in general through their physical characteristics. The physical characteristic can be known from the shape, pattern, and the form made

of various components such as space, architecture/style, function, activity, symbol, topography, and the maintenance level;

4) Nodes are the strategic points in an area that encounters various directions and activities. This element becoming the focus of the origin-destination of the movement;

5) Landmarks are the form of referenced points seen from various point of views and distance. This important city element has specific characteristic that easy to remember (unique and memorable) and becomes the stand out visual signage, so it is easy to be recognized while going around the area.

The emergence of bike-sharing is one of a different kind and system of bike rental for tourism in terms of easiness, speed, variety of business model, technology usage and be a part of public transportation. Midgley (2009) stressed that bike-sharing is done by self- service with targeted users and has different networking characteristics. Yang (2018) explained that the main idea of bike-sharing in tourism is bicycle tourism. Bicycle tourism referred to the way of tourism by cycling for one day or for days from one place to another place, and the main purpose of bicycle tourism is to seek pleasure, entertainment and vacation. Based on the perspective of tourism, bicycle tourism embracing the content of sport and tourism, so it can be categorized as the sub of sport tourism.

Yang (2018) also stated that bike-sharing tourism has the characteristics such as: 1) In- creasing the traffic capacity. The bike-sharing system has the positive value to reduce the traffic jam number in the city, so the people can save their trip time and the traffic system efficiency increasing; 2) The eco-friendly trip way. Based on this perspective, the bike-sharing system suits the green idea of low carbon and environment protection, and provides a new way for tourism; 3) The users have the freedom or flexibility. The bike-sharing tourists can choose to ride the bike and continue with different kind of transportation during the trip so the time and place can be limitless;

(7)

and 4) Rich in personal experience. It shows that the bike-sharing tourism has more ben- efit than the traditional one due to its slower trip and flexible choices. The bike-sharing tourism can make the tourists feel closer and connect deeply with the city, and they will change their activity from just a sightseeing trip into an experiential tourism.

The urban image elements building up the urban space characteristics has indirectly become the tourism attractions, which their existence will be the destination while cycling using the bike-sharing facility.

Based on the literature review, the characteristic of urban tourism space has the va-

riety and the uniqueness in size, location and function. The variety and the uniqueness could become the tourism attractions, which are not only visited by the tourists but also the locals. The tourism space consists of front stage and back stage which supporting each other as an attraction with the urban architecture elements including landmarks, paths, districts, nodes, and edges. The tourists are attracted to visit them due to the uniqueness owned by the elements which could be deliberately designed and developed or unde- liberate or it just happen to be the attraction for the tourists. The researcher illustrated the urban tourism space sequence as shown in the Figure 3.

Figure 3.

The Sequence of Urban Tourism Space

Source: Researcher (2020), adopted from Lynch (1971) and MacCannell (1973).

Based on the Figure 3, the front stage as the tourism space usually has the main objects as the attractions which directly inter- acting with the tourists, where the landmarks with uniqueness and become the visual signage will tend to be visited by the tourists, paths as the connecting line of the tourists’

movement and nodes as the meeting points.

Nodes will be the transition space from the back stage to the front stage and vice versa.

In the back stage, there are districts that can be translated as the space supporting the main attraction objects in macro, while edges becoming the back stage because they act as the border between the tourism activity and no-tourism activity, like in Yogyakarta where

it is common to find city kampong around the tourism attraction objects.

The bike-sharing tourists have the flexibility to explore the space because they have no tour guides and/or follow the offered tour packages. The chosen route will pass through the urban architecture elements. The choice is surely driven by the tourists’ motivation choosing to do bike tourism using bike-sharing system. The bike-sharing tourists’ motivation are time-saving, more flexibility ex- ploration, gaining new experience, trying out new facility, exercising and refreshing and also for environmentally-friendly reason.

Theoretical framework in this research can be seen in Table 2.

(8)

Table 2.

Theoretical Framework

Research Questions Used Theories Variables Sources

How is the characteristics of urban tourism space based on the bike- sharing tourists?

Tourism Space;

Urban tourism;

Image of the City

Front stage:

a. Landmarks b. Paths

c. Nodes (Front stage/Back stage) Back stage:

d. Districts e. Edges

Those spaces have various and unique size, location and function. They are not only visited by the tourists but also visited by the locals.

Lynch (1971), MacCannell (1973);

Page (1995)

Bike-sharing Tourists;

Motivation

a. Time-saving b. More flexibility c. New Experience d. Trying out new facility e. Exercising and refreshing f. Environmental-friendly g. Others

Law (1996), Yang (2018)

Source: Analysis, 2020.

The uniqueness of urban tourism space has indirectly given the space and tourism experience for the tourists, more importantly, they visit the attractions with unusual way which is using the bike-sharing facility.

METHOD

This research used the person-centered mapping methods, which according to Som- mer in Haryadi (2010) is one of the behav- ioral mapping visualized in form of sketch or diagram about a place area where people doing various activities.

The methods demand the researcher to face a subject that will be specifically observed, in this case, the bike-sharing. The be- havioral mapping in this research was done by following their movement and giving out the questionnaires to know the tourist’ motivation in using bike-sharing tourism in Yo- gyakarta City. The researcher recorded the tourist’ movement using Endomondo Sports Tracker application.

The Covid-19 pandemic was an obstacle during the field data collecting, so the researcher used the online survey approach to the tourists who had used the JogjaBike

bike-sharing facility and reconstructed the movement mapping manually. The obstacle also causing the decreasing of the sample numbers becoming the respondents just only reaching 88%. The obstacle also affecting the routes chosen by the tourists becoming less- precise or less-detailed to be mapped manually. But, based on the online survey result, at least it could help the data collecting in this research.

The samples acting as the respondents in this research were the tourists visited Yog- yakarta and chose bicycling tourism by rent- ing bike using JogjaBike bike-sharing facility.

The samples were collected by using acciden- tal sampling methods which were the tourists visited Yogyakarta and used the bike-sharing JogjaBike facility for tourism in person.

The respondents will be taken by using the samples number technique, defined by a specified population as formulated by Slovin (1990) in Kusmayadi and Sugiarto (2000).

Based on the formula, the number of samples

‘in this research should be 99 respondents.

But, until this paper written, the respondents collected as the samples were only 87 respondents due to the situation as mentioned

(9)

above. The sample numbers obtained didn’t affect the result. The data collecting process was conducted from April, 6th to April, 18th 2020.

The data analysis was done by observ- ing the data trend from the collected ques- tionaries’ such as tourists’ visitation frequency in urban tourism space that crossed and destined. Then, the data analysis result was visualized using spatial maps to show the research finding. The discussion will be held by dialoging the research finding with the referred theory in this research.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Bike-sharing Tourists Preferred the Urban Tourism Space that

Becoming the Common Tourist Destinations in Yogyakarta

Based on the observation results in the field, the bike-sharing tourist still visited the common tourism attraction in Yogyakarta which labelled as must-visit destinations in Yogyakarta City such as Keraton Yogyakarta (Yogyakarta Palace), Tamansari and Malio- boro. Those tourism spaces also called as the front stages; the tourism space that deliberately designed to be visited.

Although the bike-sharing tourists also visited the commonly visited tourism attraction objects by the regular tourists, they both shared different behaviors. The difference can be seen in the activities done by the bike- sharing tourists that tend to stop for a while at some preferred tourism attraction objects;

in some part or the front yard of the building, take a selfie with bicycle with the building object facade as the photo background. While the regular ones would prefer to choose to directly enter the destined tourism attraction objects. The bike-sharing tourists’ interest to transit and visit those tourism attraction ob- Figure 4.

Map of Urban Tourism Space Becoming the Tourism Destination by the Bike-sharings

(10)

jects indicated the existence of tourism space characteristics built from the urban architecture elements.

The Urban Architecture Elements Visited by the Bike-sharing Tourist in Yogyakarta

The field observation results shown that the urban architecture elements becoming the tourist’ destination with the highest number of visit frequency was the space with landmark characteristic. The visits frequency reached 72 times of visits. The second highest urban architecture elements visited by the bike-sharing tourists was the space with paths characteristic with the number of visits frequency of 50 times. The sketch of visits frequency of bike-sharing tourists can be seen in the Figure 5.

Figure 5.

The Visits Frequency of the Bike-sharing Tourists toward the Urban Architecture Elements

in Yogyakarta Source: Analysis, 2020.

The urban architecture elements as the tourism space characteristics represented in the tourism attraction objects destined by the bike-sharing tourists in Yogyakarta as written in the Table 3 below.

Table 3.

The Representation of Urban Architecture Elements as the Tourism Space Characteristic toward the Tourism Attraction Objects as Visited by the Bike-sharing Tourists The Urban Architecture Elements as

the Tourism Space Characteristics The Tourism Attraction Objects Destined by the Bike-sharing Tourists

Paths Jalan Malioboro, Jalan Mataram, and Jalan Kaliurang

Edges -

Districts Kampung Ketandan, Kotabaru, Kotagede, Prawirotaman, Sentra Bakpia Pathuk, and Kampus UGM

Nodes Alun-alun Utara, Alun-alun Selatan, Nol Kilometer, Gudeg Wijilan, Kaloka Pottery Café, Loko Café, and Pendopo Lawas Landmarks Tugu, Kepatihan (Kantor Gubernur DIY), Benteng Vredeburg,

Keraton Yogyakarta, Masjid Kauman, Tamansari. Pasar Beringharjo, Pasar Ngasem, Pasar Kranggan, Plengkung Gading, Plengkung Wijilan, Taman Pintar

The Landmarks becoming the tourism attraction objects were the buildings that mostly visited by the regular tourists in Yogyakarta such as Keraton Yogyakarta (Yogyakarta Palace) and Tamansari. But there were some landmarks which were not the tourism attraction objects but have the uniqueness as the urban architecture element such as the Tugu Pal Putih (White Pal Monument). The building at first was not designed to be the tourism attraction objects, but along with the growth of tourism activity in the city, it is indirectly making

the Pal Putih monument building into an interesting attraction for the tourists including the bike-sharing tourists. The visits frequency of bike-sharing tourists toward the tourism attraction objects with landmark characteristics can be seen in the Figure 6.

The paths that became the second mostly visited urban architecture element by the bike-sharing tourists which also the tourism attraction object that mostly visited by the regular tourists is Malioboro Street. The visits frequency of bike-sharing user tourists

(11)

toward the path element can be seen in the Figure 7.

The nodes as the urban architecture element also became the stopping points for the bike-sharing tourists in Yogyakarta. The bike- sharing tourists’ visit toward the tourism attraction object as nodes were mostly done in the tourism space as characterized by the open space, iconic and commonly used as the meeting point for the people in the city. The visit frequency toward the nodes element that becoming the tourism attraction objects by the bike-sharing tourists can be seen in the Figure 8.

The visits frequency of the bike-sharing tourists toward the district-characterized tourism space had the least number of visits frequency with only 11 times. This was due to the districts-characterized objects mostly situated outside the center or out of the

“Sumbu Filosofi” (The Philosophy Axis) of Yogyakarta. There is only one attraction situated near Malioboro called Kampung Ketan- dan (Chinatown). The unique thing found was that the highest frequency toward the district-characterized space was to Kotagede which located more than 5 kilometers away from Malioboro. The Kotagede area is still becoming one of the tourism attraction objects visited by the bike-sharing tourists. Here is the diagram showing the Visits Frequency of Bike-sharing Tourists toward the Districts- characterized Space in Yogyakarta.

Then, as shown in the Figure 10, it can be seen the Map of Urban Architecture Ele- ments as the Tourism Space Characteristic toward the Tourism Attraction Objects as Visited by the Bike-sharing Tourists.

Figure 6.

The Visits Frequency of Bike-sharing Tourists toward the Landmarks-Characterized Space

Figure 7.

The Visits Frequency of Bike-sharing Tourists toward the Paths-Characterized Space

Figure 8.

The Visits Frequency of the Bike-sharing Tourists toward the Nodes-Chracterized Space

Source: Analysis (2020).

Figure 9.

The Visits Frequency of Bike-sharing Tourists toward the Districts-Characterized Space

(12)

Figure 10.

Map of Urban Architecture Elements as the Tourism Space Characteristic toward the Tourism Attraction Objects as Visited by the Bike-sharing Tourists

The Tourists’ Motivation in Using the Bike-Sharing

The tourists’ motivation in using the bike-sharing were to gain new experience (53%), to be able to explore the city more freely (18%) and for environment-friendly motivation (16%), while the rest of the respondents were motivated to do sports in the morning, time saving and for social media content purpose such as Instagram.

The bike-sharing tourists had the flexibility to explore the urban space, especially the space that becoming the back stages of tourism to seek uniqueness in there. But the time limitation causing the tourists only still exploring the tourism attraction objects in the front stages. Based on the field observation, the bike-sharing users averagely spent 2 hours of cycling, with the distance explora- tion radius of 2 to 3 kilometers from the bike

shelters which mostly situated in Malioboro.

Around 63% of the tourists rent the bike from the JogjaBike shelter located in front of Ma- lioboro Mall.

The overall result shown that the characteristics of urban tourism space used by the bike-sharing tourist in Yogyakarta City were the spaces that been designed and developed to give the tourism experience for visi- tors. The tourism experience in those spaces were in line with the experience seeked by the bike-sharing tourists. It was shown by the 53% respondents whose motivation were to have new experience in tourism using the bike-sharing facility in Yogyakarta City. The theory stated by MacCannell (1973) about the tourism product is not the tourist destination, but it is about experience of that place and what happen there is in line with the bike-sharing tourists’ characteristic theory as stated by Yang (2018).

(13)

The characteristic of urban tourism space is unique in term of various function, so the bike-sharing tourists have more flexibility in choosing the spaces that wanted to be visited, including the spaces that visited by the locals such as traditional markets, mosques and some public spaces even the tourists just took selfies with the bike and the building fa- cades or the surrounding environment as the background pictures. It reflected the theory stated by Page (1995) about the uniqueness of function in the urban space that becoming the tourism attractions and in line with the theory by Yang (2018) about the flexibility owned by the bike-sharing tourists to choose the place that becoming the attractions.

The characteristics of urban tourism space visited by the bike-sharing tourists in Yogyakarta shown the sequence of space adopted from the theory of MacCannell (1973) and Lynch (1971), which showing that front stage tourism space still became the strong tourism attraction with architecture elements such as landmarks, paths, and nodes. Those three elements indirectly owned the sense of place so the bike-sharing tourists were motivated to cycle around those spaces to gain new experience (Yang, 2018).

Urban tourism space used by bike- sharing tourist is dominated by landmarks characteristic, because it has specific characteristic that easy to remember (unique and memorable) and becomes the stand out visual signage (Lynch, 1971).

CONCLUSION

The characteristic of urban tourism space destined by the bike-sharing tourist were still dominated by the space which becoming the front stage tourism space or the space that deliberately designed to be visited, while the back stage has not been deeply explored. This conclusion is in line with the research result that the only urban architecture element that not been visited by the bike-sharing tourists were the edges-characterized spaces. Those spaces can actually be found in Yogyakarta, such as in the riverside of Code River, Win-

ogo River and Gajahwong River which some of them were designed as tourism attraction objects too.

The urban tourism space explored by the bike-sharing tourists were dominated by the tourist attraction that situated in “Sumbu Fi- losofi” (The Philosophy Axis) or around the Center of Yogyakarta City defined as Tugu - Malioboro – Alun-alun Utara – Keraton and its surrounding including Alun-alun Selatan and Tamansari. The characteristic of the urban tourism space in form of landmarks and paths elements were the mostly visited destination by the bike-sharing tourists in Yogya- karta City.

The attractions visited by the tourists while cycling was still focusing on the main- stream or commonly visited ones. Although they cycling, the tourists had not chosen to explore deeper and had not visited the least favorite tourism attraction objects such as museum, educational tourism, culinary tourism or the village/kampong tourism. It is because the bike station location’s distribution is still concentrated in Malioboro, not spread- ing to approach the tourism attraction objects outside the center (“Sumbu Filosofi”/The Philosophy Axis) of Yogyakarta City.

The research result indicated that the distribution of bike-sharing tourists visits to Yogyakarta are not evenly spread, so the providence of bike-sharing facility located near the tourism attraction objects should be done evenly in all around the Yogyakarta City, not only clustered around the Malio- boro area.

The urban architecture has the potential to be the urban tourism generator with its uniqueness in form of space characteristics as the attraction. Pushing the special interest bicycling tourism with bike-sharing will en- large the opportunity to attract the tourists’

visit and gain new experience to explore the tourism space in Yogyakarta. The development opportunity of bike-sharing in tourism could also anticipate the over-tourism which indicated by the traffic jam in the city streets.

(14)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Haryadi and Setiawan, B. 2010. Arsitektur, Lingkungan, dan Perilaku: Pengantar ke Teori, Metodologi dan Aplikasi.

Gadjah Mada University Press.

Yogyakarta.

Kusmayadi and Sugiarto, E. 2000. Metodo- logi Penelitian dalam Bidang Kepari- wisataan. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Jakarta

Law, C. 1996. Tourism in Major Cities.

International Thomson Business Press. London.

Leiper, N. 1979. “The Framework of Tourism:

Towards a Definition of Tourism, Tourist, and The Tourist Industry”.

Annals of Tourism Research, 6 (4):

390-407.

Lynch, K. 1971. The Image of The City. 7th ed. The MIT Press. Massachusetts.

MacCannell, D. 1973. “Staged Authenticity:

Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings”. American Journal of Sociology, 79 (3): 589-603.

Midgley, P. 2009. “The Role of Smart Bike- sharing Systems in Urban Mobility”.

Journeys, 23-31.

Page, S. and Hall, M. 2003. Managing Urban Tourism. Pearson Education Limited. Harlow.

Yang, Z. 2018. “Problems and Counter- measures of Bike-sharing Tourism in China”. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research (AEBMR), 60.

(15)

UCAPAN TERIMA KASIH

Kepada para mitra bestari yang telah mengevaluasi artikel-artikel dalam Jurnal Teknosains pada Volume 11, Nomor 1 Desember 2021, kami mengucapkan terimakasih kepada:

1. Drs. Gede Bayu Suparta, M.S., Ph.D. : Universitas Gadjah Mada 2. Prof. Dr. Ir. Harwin Saptoadi, M.SE. : Universitas Gadjah Mada 3. Dr. Ir.Budi Prayitno, M.Eng : Universitas Gadjah Mada 4. Widyasari Her Nugrahandika, ST, M.Sc : Universitas Gadjah Mada 5. Dr. Eko Haryono, M.Si : Universitas Gadjah Mada 6. Muhammad Kusumawan Herliansyah, ST,MT,Ph.D : Universitas Gadjah Mada 7. Rendy Bayu Aditya, S.T., MUP. : Universitas Gadjah Mada

8. Dr. Endah Puji Septisetyani M.Sc. : Pusat Penelitian Bioteknologi LIPI

VOLUME 11 No. 1, 22 Desember 2021

(16)

Redaksi menerima kiriman artikel dengan ketentuan sebagai berikut:

1. Artikel belum pernah dipublikasikan dalam media lain dan tidak mengandung unsur plagiat dengan dilampiri pernyataan tertulis dari penulis.

2. Artikel dapat berupa hasil penelitian (lapangan, kepustakaan), kajian, gagasan konseptual dan aplikasi teori, laporan kasus atau resensi buku.

3. Naskah diketik dengan huruf Times New Roman ukuran 12, spasi 1,5 pada kertas ukuran A4 dengan ruang sisi 3,5 cm dari tepi kiri, 3 cm dari tepi kanan, 3 cm dari tepi atas dan bawah.

Jumlah halaman 12-20 halaman termasuk daftar pustaka dan tabel.

4. Judul, abstrak, dan kata-kata kunci ditulis dalam bahasa Indonesia dan bahasa Inggris.

5. Judul ditulis dalam format Sencence Case dengan ukuran font 14, baik judul dalam Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris.

6. Sistematika penulisan artikel disusun dengan urutan sebagai berikut: (a) judul: komprehensif, jelas dan singkat. Judul artikel, judul bagian, dan subbagian dicetak tebal. Judul diketik dengan huruf kapital ukuran 14. Judul bagian dan subbagian diketik dengan title case; (b) nama dan alamat penulis: nama ditulis lengkap tanpa gelar. Alamat ditulis di bawah nama penulis, disertai dengan alamat lengkap dengan nomor telepon dan alamat email yang dapat dihubungi; (c) tanggal penyelesaian naskah: dicantumkan di bawah alamat penulis, untuk menunjukkan kemutakhiran artikel; (d) abstrak: merupakan intisari naskah, berjumlah 100- 150 kata dan dituangkan dalam satu paragraph. Abstrak ditulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris; (e) kata-kata kunci: di bawah abstrak dicantumkan kata-kata kunci (key words) maksimum lima kata. Kata-kata kunci harus mencerminkan konsep penting yang ada di dalam naskah; (f) pengantar/acknowledgement (tanpa judul dan subbab): berisi latar belakang, masalah/tujuan, tinjauan pustaka; (g) pembahasan: ditulis dalam bahasa Indonesia atau bahasa Inggris, menyajikan dan membahas secara jelas pokok bahasan dengan mengacu pada tujuan penulisan; (h) gambar, tabel, dan rumus: gambar, tabel dan rumus diberi judul, nomor, dan keterangan lengkap serta dikutip di dalam teks. Data berupa gambar atau tabel hendaknya merupakan data yang sudah diolah. Pencantuman tabel atau gambar yang terlalu panjang (lebih dari 1 halaman) sebaiknya dihindari. Perujukan atau pengutipan gambar, tabel, dan rumus menggunakan penomoran, bukan dengan kata-kata seperti “di bawah ini”,

“sebagai berikut”, atau “berikut ini”. Contoh: Struktur penulisan judul berita pada rubrik ekonomi harian Kompas disajikan dalam tabel 4; (i) grafik atau kurva: grafik atau kurva yang mengindikasikan perbedaan makna dibuat dalam bentuk garis tebal/tipis/putus-putus, pembuatan grafik dengan menggunakan warna sebagai pembeda makna hendaknya dihindari (j) simpulan; (k) daftar pustaka/daftar rujukan: pustaka yang diacu harus dipakai dan masuk dalam teks artikel.

7. Daftar rujukan ditulis dengan cara seperti contoh berikut, diurutkan secara alfabetis.

Fakih, M., 2006, Runtuhnya Teori Pembangunan dan Globalisasi. Yogyakarta: Insist Press.

Kedare, B.S. and Tendokar, C.S., 1953, “Destructive Distillation of Some, Hardwood Species of Bombay State”, J. Sci. Industr. Res., 12B, 217-221.

8. Naskah dapat dikirim melalui pos ke alamat redaksi dengan menyertakan cakram padat (CD) atau dikirim melalui pos-el (email) ke alamat: [email protected] dan jurnalkawistara@

gmail.com (untuk kelompok ilmu-ilmu sosial humaniora). File dibuat dalam format Microsoft Word/Rich Text Format.

9. Kepastian pemuatan atau penolakan naskah akan diberitahukan secara tertulis kepada penulis. Artikel yang tidak dimuat tidak akan dikembalikan, kecuali atas permintaan penulis.

10. Penulis bersedia melakukan revisi naskah jika diperlukan.

11. Penulis yang naskahnya dimuat akan menerima tiga eksemplar sebagai bukti pemuatan dan dua eksemplar cetak lepas

12. Wajib menggunakan referensi manager (mendeley) Jurnal Ilmiah Sains dan Teknologi

Universitas Gadjah Mada Volume 11, Nomor 1, Desember 2021

PENERBIT

Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada PENANGGUNG JAWAB

Hilda Ismail PIMPINAN REDAKSI

Widowati Siswomihardjo Muhammad Kusumawan H DEWAN PENYUNTING

G. J Bart Verkerke Tati LR. Mengko Widowati Siswomihardjo Muhammad Kusumawan H

STAF REDAKSI Pradiastuti Purwitorosari

Okta Tangguh Wibowo Nurvita Trias Puspitasari

Hastangka DESAIN SAMPUL

Pudji Widodo MITRA BESTARI

Drs. Gede Bayu Suparta, M.S., Ph.D.: Universitas Gadjah Mada Prof. Dr. Ir. Harwin Saptoadi, M.SE.: Universitas Gadjah Mada

Dr. Ir.Budi Prayitno, M.Eng: Universitas Gadjah Mada Widyasari Her Nugrahandika, ST, M.Sc: Universitas Gadjah Mada

Dr. Eko Haryono, M.Si: Universitas Gadjah Mada

Muhammad Kusumawan Herliansyah, ST,MT,Ph.D : Universitas Gadjah Mada Rendy Bayu Aditya, S.T., MUP.: Universitas Gadjah Mada

Dr. Endah Puji Septisetyani M.Sc.: Pusat Penelitian Bioteknologi LIPI ALAMAT REDAKSI

Kantor Redaksi Jurnal Teknosains Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Gadjah Mada

Jalan Teknika Utara, Pogung Yogyakarta Telp. 0274-564239 ext (207), Fax. 0274-564239

Email: [email protected] https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/teknosains

(17)

Jurnal Ilmiah Sains dan Teknologi Universitas Gadjah Mada

Jl. Teknika Utara, Pogung, Yogyakarta, 55281 Telp. (0274) 564239

e-mail: [email protected] website: https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/teknosains

PROGRAM STUDI/MINAT STUDI S2/S3

SEKOLAH PASCASARJANA (SPs) UGM MELIPUTI:

♦ Agama dan Lintas Budaya**)

● Ekonomi Islam

♦ Bioteknologi**)

● Rekayasa Biomedis

♦ Bioetika

♦ Ilmu Lingkungan**)

● Geo Informasi untuk Manajemen Bencana

● Magister Pengelolaan Lingkungan

● Magister Teknologi untuk Pengembangan Berkelanjutan

● Pengelolaan Infrastruktur dan Pembangunan Masyarakat

♦ Inter-Religious Studies (IRS)*

♦ Kajian Budaya dan Media**)

● Manajemen Informasi dan Perpustakaan

♦ Kajian Pariwisata**)

♦ Ketahanan Nasional

● Magister Perdamaian dan Resolusi Konflik

♦ Magister Manajemen Bencana

♦ Magister Manajemen Pendidikan Tinggi

♦ Pengkajian Seni Pertunjukan dan Seni Rupa**)

♦ Penyulihan dan Komunikasi Pembangunan**)

♦ Studi Kebijakan**)

♦ Studi Kependudukan**)

*) Program S3

**) Program S2 dan S3

Determination of the Convective Heat Transfer Constant (C and n) in a Solar Still Dan Mugisidi, Abdul Rahman, Pancatatva Hesti Gunawan, and Oktarina Heriyani The Utilization of Village-Information System for

Integrated Social Welfare Data Management: Actor-Network Theory Approach in Gunungkidul Regency

Elanto Wijoyono The Pattern of Lingga Village Based on History Berkat Idaman, Shanty Silitonga, dan Yulianto Qin Analysis of Ceiling Type to Produce Energy Efﬁcient Residential Buildings:

Case Study on Housing Design of Puskim PU-Bandung City Nurina Vidya Ayuningtyas^,Istiana Adianti, dan Jatmika Adi Suryabrata Pemanfaatan Citra Kamera Inframerah Thermal (KIT) untuk Mendeteksi Area Inﬂamasi pada Tubuh Manusia Mardon Limena, Giner Maslebu, dan Ferdy S. Rondonuwu Strategi Pengelolaan Pariwisata Berkelanjutan di Kawasan Wisata Alam Sumber Maron, Kabupaten Malang

Agnes Caesarika GP, Muhamad, dan Chaﬁd Fandeli Employing Lipase of Candida antarctica (CaLB) as Catalyst in the Acetylation of Para-Aminophenol in Aqueous and Water-Free Medium

Hilda Ismail, Evi Lande Setiyani, Dwi Titus Indriyawati, dan B. S. Ari Sudarmanto Urban Tourism Space Based on Bike-Sharing Tourist in Yogyakarta City Danar Wiyoso dan Diananta Pramitasari